Search Results

I agreed up until here. This is a very personal opinion here but I don't think you need to form a relationship with a character for them to be good. It's all about how good a job they do at being what they are meant to. It ties back into my stance on ineffability. Something that you simply can't comprehend is just as interesting if not moreso than something that is well within the scope of your understanding. For instance, I fell in love with the Kumagawa character in Medaka Box the second he said he'd ripped a girl's face off to see if he truly loved her and not just her looks. There's no way I can relate to that or connect with a character like that, but I loved the fact that he was so divorced from the standard perception of reality that it only seemed natural for him to do that. Sometimes a character is good because of the way they explore humanity or represent a larger concept or say "hey, what if..." rather than how much of a 'human' they are. That's why allegories can have good characters too.

You lead an interesting life.

Flaws aren't necessary to understand or relate to a character and you don't need to understand a character for them to be good. Sometimes you want a paragon or an avatar of something. Sometimes you want purity of personality and ineffability. This goes back to what I was saying about characters needing to fulfill their roles. Not all characters are supposed to be comprehensible, relatable or 2deep4u. That doesn't make them flimsy. I will always say that I like static characters better than dynamic ones because they are representations of willpower and steadfastness that I have to respect in spite of myself a lot of the time. Someone who is too strong and stubborn to be changed by anything no matter how extreme can be just as interesting as someone who grows up and learns a lesson. And a character that you can't relate to or understand can be good too. That huge disconnect between you and them creates a different relationship between them and the rest of the characters and really puts to question how they do what they do and why they do it. It makes a good enigmatic character at the least. So rather than saying your points are wrong, I'm thinking that it's more that they're incredibly limiting. You're ruling out entire classes of characters and I feel like you should give them a chance. You might end up liking them.

I am equidistant from all members.

Look upon this earth. Survey the wreckage of your once noble empire. Allow your eyes to drink it all in. When your soul is all but ready to burst remember and say to yourself but one thing.

"I did this."

Reply in quote.

typo T^T

Were you there when tumblr went live?

The fact that similar things have been done in the past makes this a little less impressive to me.
About .02% less impressive.

It occurred to me that it might be the case as I was rereading it to respond, but figured it'd do no harm either way.

I actually will have to say that I don't totally agree with you here. I feel that static characters shouldn't just be for less serious work and I think that static characters don't have any more excuse to be flat than more dynamic characters. Flatness should be unrelated to motion. One prime example, Yagami Light of Death Note. He's probably the most static character I've ever seen in a manga with a real story. You can tell that he doesn't change worth **** because he states his goals at the beginning and his methodology for achieving them never wavers. He stays the same the whole time, it's the world around him that's changing to conform with his true self. He's not a ball rolling down a hill, he's an onion being peeled. That's incredibly three dimensional but also undeniably static. Another example would be like Troy Maxon of Fences. He's very static, he's stuck in his own past even and dies in denial. But you see his history unfold and why he's so set in his ways and how the world moves around him. So a static character isn't just someone on the side or a character in a short periodical. There's no problem with lack of development because without a stable reference point, how do you see everything else change? So I agree that static isn't bad but I feel that flatness isn't an intrinsically related trait so much as a coinciding one.

When it comes to offering insight: that's a fine line you're walking. On one hand you're letting your reader write your book and on the other you're giving them food for thought.

I probably got a little incoherent around the top X lines, X being all lines but this one, but I'm very ill at the moment, so please forgive me.

There's a positive and negative way to look at that. The positive way is that I saw you as pretty much worthless initially; the same way I see all new members until they prove themselves good or bad. The negative way is that you were one of the people that made a bad first impression on me and you later remedied that after your name change. Either way I don't think ill of you now and won't think ill of you if you revert, I just will be reminded of certain things for a time.

I find this impossible to believe.

It's your choice, but I associate Te Deum with the times when I thought much less of you.

Hoodie and cargos year round. The temperature can tell someone else how to dress.

Life is good.
Life is great.
Life is unbelievable.

Life is hard.
Life is cruel.
Life in so beautiful.

So Chev you think it's ok to tell What? which colors he's allowed to be critical of? cause if so you really have no place in this conversation and can back off right now. i may or may not support the blue that What? decides to criticise but he's just trying to make the forum more beauteous, how can you be against that?

It's because everyone feels entitled to an opinion, even when they have none of the requisite knowledge or experience to make an unbiased or at least halfway rational judgment.